If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

theres not much wrong with the tokina 80-400. id be replacing the tamron 70-200 well b4 that one. the sony looks kinda decent but nothing earthshattering.

Not sure why you'd say this and without quoting a yardstick.

The Tokina's a good value for money lens lens but far from brilliant. I don't have any MTF's for this lens but here's some extracts from an owner's assessment ..."In the range 80-250 mm this Tokina lens performs well
At f8 it delivers good results even above 300mm but the lens needs good light conditions
In the typical focal range for which someone buys this lens, 250-400mm, it's so-so
At apertures wider open than f8 and above about 250mm focal length, CA is notcieable on the AT-X 840 II and the lens sharpness becomes soft (wide-open) above about 300mm.
AF can hunt in low light but in general it's accurate and quick on the 7D, except above 350mm focal where it becomes so-so
I gave it a 4 for sharpness not because it isn't good for what this lens is, but because it's uneven; sharp wide-open in the range where you have other options (up until 250mm) and less sharp even stopped down in the range that this lens is typically purchased for (300mm or more)."

On the other hand (from http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-a...00_456?start=1) the Sony 70-400mm has very well controlled CA only at 400mm does it increase to a "moderate 1px at the borders".
As for resolution ... "The Sony 70-400mm G produced very good resolution figures in the MTF lab. The performance is best at 70mm with a generally excellent quality across the image field. There's a slight decrease in performance towards 200mm and a little more so at 300mm and 400mm respectively. Unsurprisingly the quality is "worst" at 400mm @ f/5.6 (also with slightly reduced contrast) but we're still talking about very good resolution figures here. Stopping down improves the border quality till reaching its maximum at f/8. The amount of field curvature is negligible."

Even at 400mm f8 the MTF is 2043/1989. Those seem like pretty decent specs to me for the range, certainly in the A-mount and leaving out Primes.

Of all my 400mm various combination shots ... the TAMRON has the best overall performance, in my opinion, from the spherical bokeh to the sharpness and diminished Chromatic Aberration. You guys really need to re-evaluate value of glass. The TAMRON is the bargain for them all ... and it's shooting pretty darn good on the A850.

On the CZ 135 f/1.8, if it wasn't for that GREEN Chroma ... that you can normally get when the CZ 135 is at wide aperture ... the SONY CZ (w/ the 3x T/C on it) and the TAMRON are pretty close.

As far as the purple fringe you see on the Tokina 80-400, it is not a digital upgraded version. Because mine is a Minolta mount, it is a model I (or 35mm-film model). Very few Model II ("D") were released by Tokina, after Minolta closed its doors. They discontinued the mount and only Nikon and Canon mounts are currently produced, Perhaps they will again and this aspect of the optic will be reduced more.

Originally Posted by jekostas

I've found that what you think and what's realistic (or true, for that matter) are often phenomenally different things. You don't need four - five lenses that cover one focal length - you need one. One good one. "Nickel and diming" yourself to death with crappy lenses instead of buying that one good quality lens will be far, far, FAR worse in the long run than using a short set of really good glass.

Well, what's true is the TAMRON 200-500 is one GOOD lens and is shooting rings around the other lenses I used @ 400mm ... so ... take it from there, Mr. ebay! Bang out your own comparison before shooting from the hip.

Last edited by DonSchap; 09-13-2009 at 04:41 PM.

Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography A Photographer Is ForeverLook, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.flickr® & Sdi

#~!* ! '#+- @@ /?>*:^! /~'|<> #~!* ! '#+- @@ /?>*:^! /~'|<>
I've moderated my own post in anticipaton that it would be excised anyway.
I suggest that the moderator does the same to the last post in order to preserve some degree of forum credibility.

#~!* ! '#+- @@ /?>*:^! /~'|<> #~!* ! '#+- @@ /?>*:^! /~'|<>
I've moderated my own post in anticipaton that it would be excised anyway.
I suggest that the moderator does the same to the last post in order to preserve some degree of forum credibility.

Peter ... it is a simple comparison ... you be the judge. No funny stuff ... just swap the lens, focus and ... shoot. Don't even read the text ... you can write your own.

BTW: DOES ANYONE ON THE FORUM HAVE A SONY AF 70-400mm f/4-5.6 G SSM lens? Just askin' ... Who is actually shooting through the "phenominal improvement" in glassware, that I should run right out and buy one? I know darn well it is not the Nikon and Canon crusaders who breeze threw here.

Here, also is a sample of what happens to text (DOF change) when you shoot it at a 45-degree angle @ f/1.8 through the CZ 135mm f/1.8 lens. I always wondered about this almost prismatic response to BLACK text, as it comes into the focal plane and leaves it. Does not matter what camera you have it on ... it does it on both kinds of sensors (APS-C & FF).

Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography A Photographer Is ForeverLook, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.flickr® & Sdi

Peter ... it is a simple comparison ... you be the judge. No funny stuff ... just swap the lens, focus and ... shoot. Don't even read the text ... you can write your own.

BTW: DOES ANYONE ON THE FORUM HAVE A SONY AF 70-400mm f/4-5.6 G SSM lens? Just askin' ... Who is actually shooting through the "phenominal improvement" in glassware, that I should run right out and buy one? I know darn well it is not the Nikon and Canon crusaders who breeze threw here.

Don, stop taking my quotes out of context. It does not make you look intelligent or well-informed, it makes you look incredibly foolish. Hell, you even went so far as to cut and paste a quote from a completely different thread in to this one.

I didn't advocate you buying anything - I responded to something incredibly foolish that you wrote saying that more glass is always better, even if it's garbage glass.

Oh, and of COURSE something will compare well favourably to a $1500 Zeiss lens when you slap a $150 teleconverter on it.